Key result
The unipolar active can system yielded similar defibrillation thresholds to a dual lead system (12.3 vs 10.8 J) but significantly reduced operation duration (66.8 vs 80.8 min; P<0.05).
Why the study?
Does a unipolar defibrillation system improve procedural times and maintain defibrillation efficacy compared to a dual lead system in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation?
Population
38 consecutive patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implantation
Comparison
Unipolar defibrillation system consisting of a… vs Dual lead system with a 12-cm long…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May shorten implantation without raising thresholds; leaves open need for RCTs before changing dual-lead practice.
Observational (n=38)
Does a unipolar defibrillation system improve procedural times and maintain defibrillation efficacy compared to a dual lead system in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.3% vs 10.8%
The unipolar active can defibrillation system provides reliable defibrillation efficacy with significantly reduced operation and fluoroscopy times compared to a dual lead system.
MATTKE et al. (1996) conducted an observational in Patients requiring transvenous defibrillation (n=38). Unipolar defibrillation system (active can) vs. Dual lead system with a 12-cm long defibrillation anode was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) in successfully implanted patients. The unipolar active can system yielded similar defibrillation thresholds to a dual lead system (12.3 vs 10.8 J) but significantly reduced operation duration (66.8 vs 80.8 min; P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: